1st International Workshop on XMRV: ACT NOW

[thegodofpleasure]

Well he says detection of MLV-virus related gene sequences. That doesn't rule out XMRV, and very quickly means multiple.

Yes, I agree with you.

I hadn't thought of it in that way - could it potentially mean multiple strains of the virus ?
Whilst WPI were pretty confident that they were seeing very little (if any) sequence variability several months ago, that doesn't mean to say the situation hasn't moved on since then.

However, as I said, there is still the other way of looking at it and until the paper is published, we just don't know.

TGOP

 

[Daffodil]

i heard recently that it is multiple strains of the same virus - XMRV. i posed that question to some docs via email after the last ruscetti talk. maybe something has changed, though.

 

[V99]

So it's either ?MLV or XMRV-?

 

[eric_s]

I probably shouldn't speculate too much, because i don't want to make people nervous for nothing, but there are some more things that came to my mind.

If they say they have found gene sequences, that sounds like they have only done PCR to me. Is that correct (scientists please answer)?
Because if you look for antibodies and you find them, you would either say you have found antibodies, signs of an infection or a virus.
Also if you do culture, you would probably also not put it like that, because if it grows it must be a virus and not just a gene sequence, right?
On the other hand they could have said it like this, because the title says they have found something and they didn't want to say XMRV in order not to make a big splash before the conference.

I don't think it's possible to judge just from that title what's in the paper anyway, so don't take too seriously what i say here. On September 7 the cards will be on the table, finally.. (i'm a bit nervous, but still better than having to wait for ever)

 

[eric_s]

There might be a connection between the name change from XMRV to HGRV and the fact that the Lo presentation's title does not say "XMRV".
Dr. Mikovits said that the FDA study

will not only confirm our findings but extend our findings

here.
Maybe Dr. Lo has made some discoveries that lead to the name change. Or Dr. Lo knew that a name change might be coming.

 

[leelaplay]

hi eric

interesting speculations as to why Dr Lo used MLV-related virus instead of XMRV.

Here's another, not necessariy mutually-exclusive idea: (and forgive me if I have this all wrong -almost no brain today) Could Lo be referring to the multiple strains that Mikovits, Lombardi et al have referred to? 6 known so far I think? sorry - too tired to find the link.

 

[V99]

Is it because xenotropic means, pertaining to a virus that is found benignly in cells of one animal species but that will replicate into complete virus particles only when it infects cells of a different species.

and that this is not found in mice, yet?

 

[Sunshine]

Clearly, he's not referring to XMRV specifically -
The title says "detecting Murine Leukemia Virus related virus gene sequence" which is not (completely) the same thing

I suspect that this gives us a big hint at the compromise that has been made in the Alter / Lo paper, in order to get it to publication and to save the CDC from total embarrasment.

...............Discuss

Hi. Please correct me if I am wrong (I am often wrong I get confused and have trouble reading).

XMRV in humans = Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus related Virus.

Which sounds awfully like?

''detecting Murine Leukemia Virus related virus gene sequence"

Perhaps he left out Xenotropic by mistake rather than on purpose, or it was a typo?
The other scenario (as already alluded to) is it's another strain of XMRV or not Xenotropic. But how could it not be Xenotropic?

Confused again!

 

[eric_s]

I don't think it was a msitake or a typo, but who knows? I'm just happy if there are some possible good explanations for it.

 

[muffin]

I'm with SickofCFS: Mr Switzer is a Mr and NOT a Dr. by the medical establishment or via a PhD. As I have been told by several people, it does not matter how many graduate degrees you have - you could have 100 grad degrees, they still do not make a PhD. And this guy has done nothing that he should be called Dr. He is NOT a doctor.
Why he was there and why he worked on this study is beyond me. The CDC couldn't find a PhD/MD with the background to do real research? Was THIS the problem? Not having a properly trained scientist doing the stupid CDC study? Not being phoney here, but wouldn't you want someone with the proper training and education? I saw this as an insult. We weren't worth a crummy PhD or MD. God knows the CDC has enough of them crawling all over the place doing nothing...
I'm irritable, don't mind me...

 

[eric_s]

I just have a hard time imagining what will happen at this conference. Switzer, Bannert, Huber, all those people who have produced negative studies, will they go there and present their work that was unsuccessful in between the presentations of Mikovits, Lo and hopefully the Swedish group who have found the virus? They would feel quite stupid, no? Would they do this?
They could turn things around a bit and say their work led to knowledge about what is important in how to look for HGRV and in what subgroups of PWCs to look, but still it would not be something you really want to do ?